I have Concrete evidence that Darwinism is based on Presuppositions only (quote, evolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's very simple. Everything that can be observed is allowed in two models, the tree model and the orchard model. All observable, empirical, scientific data is allowed in both models, whether it is change in allele frequency, finch beaks changing, homology, DNA similarities, fused chromosome 2, speciation, natural selection, transitional fossils, endogenous retroviruses, etc…
If all the scientific data is allowed in two models then why does mainstream science only support and promote one model?
It's very simple. Everything that can be observed is allowed in two models, the tree model and the orchard model. All observable, empirical, scientific data is allowed in both models, whether it is change in allele frequency, finch beaks changing, homology, DNA similarities, fused chromosome 2, speciation, natural selection, transitional fossils, endogenous retroviruses, etc…
If all the scientific data is allowed in two models then why does mainstream science only support and promote one model?
Please list your educational qualifications and please submit all of your research.
Your religious hubris is astounding. What makes you think you have qualifications to dismiss decades of research by thousand of well educated scientists? Unreal!!! What's next? Have a better way to do open heart surgery? How about a more efficient way to remove brain tumors? Lets here your plan for a new space shuttle fleet.
It's very simple. Everything that can be observed is allowed in two models, the tree model and the orchard model. All observable, empirical, scientific data is allowed in both models, whether it is change in allele frequency, finch beaks changing, homology, DNA similarities, fused chromosome 2, speciation, natural selection, transitional fossils, endogenous retroviruses, etc…
If all the scientific data is allowed in two models then why does mainstream science only support and promote one model?
This is because many of these predictions (fused chromosome 2, speciation, transitional fossils, endogenous retroviruses) fulfill the the perdictions of the theory of evolution.
These ideas do not fulfill the predictions of any creationist ideas.
Some of these are not exactly predicted by the theory of evolution but are significantly more likely to be true of evolution was true (homology, DNA similarities, change in allele frequencies). The finch beaks and natural selection are predictions of evolution, but they were used to come up with the theory in the first place so they really don't contribute to its predictive power.
Thread does not pertain to religion or philosophy, but rather, science. As such thread is closed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
